Court Discusses “Substantial Justification” Defense to an Award of Fees Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(d). Although the old adage “bad facts make bad law” may apply in some contexts, that is not the case here. Rather, bad facts may lead to good law, which is what happened in In re Machuca, Jr., 2012 […]
Dissenting Justice Would Reconsider Hawaii Corp. Rule. In Klestadt & Winters, LLP v. Cangelosi, Case Nos. 10-16970 et al. (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, determined that Rule 11/inherent powers sanctions orders against a client and their attorneys by a district court sitting in bankruptcy
Distinction Should Be Remembered To Avoid Forfeiture Of Fee Compensation. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Alan Jaroslovsky of the Northern District of California, in a short memorandum decision in In re Dixon, Case No. 09-11851 (Doc. #144, filed Sept. 19, 2010), gives a poignant reminder to all debtor bankruptcy attorneys representing individuals in Chapter 11 proceedings:
Second District, Division 6 Applies This Principle to Resolve Appeal. The Second District, Division 6, in the elegantly short opinion of Somogyi v. Adley, Case No. B217525 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 21, 2010) (unpublished), reminds us of an important principle that many might think would not apply to post-discharge, pre-petition perfected judgment
Ninth Circuit Does Determine That “Fees on Fees” Are Not Recoverable In Sanctions Proceeding By Which Creditors’ Controlling Persons Held Jointly and Severally Liable For Involuntary Petition Dismissal Expenses. Here is an interesting one for you bankruptcy practitioners, with co-contributors Marc and Mike knowing several of the bankruptcy attorneys involved in the appeal.
Part 1 of 2: First Ten Grouping—Nos. 11-20. As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of the decision. Rather, we try to survey decisions of interest in different
Fees Are Not Recoverable For Prosecuting Stay “Damages” Claims Unconnected to Actual Enforcement of Stay Violation. For you bankruptcy practitioners, we have a recent case of interest about the attorney’s fees recoverable in enforcing the automatic stay. Do they extent to subsequent “damages” claims in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding apart from actions that actually
Although Germane In Bankruptcy Context, Case May Be Helpful in Non-Bankruptcy Cases. You readers of our blog are a constant source of inspiration. Today, we thank attorney Andrew L. Fagan of Santa Rosa for alerting us to a recent unpublished Ninth Circuit BAP decision that has interesting discussions of block billing and reimbursement
Ninth Circuit So Holds in Recent Published Decision. In In the Matter of Hoopai, Case No. 07-15868 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2009) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit decided two things: (1) a creditor’s pre-confirmation request for an award of fees as an oversecured creditor in a Chapter 13 case was governed by 11
Ninth Circuit So Holds In Arizona Case, But Relies on California Authorities. All of you trustees out there—whether in a probate or bankruptcy context—can breathe a little easier given the next holding from a recent Ninth Circuit case. Although involving Arizona substantive law, the Court of Appeals relied on analogous California authority so
